Factors influencing choice of chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)

Prognostic factors and therapeutic effects of different treatment modalities for colorectal cancer liver metastases

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignant tumors in China, and the liver is the most common metastatic site in patients with advanced CRC. Hepatectomy is the gold standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases. For patients who cannot undergo radical resection of liver metastases for various reasons, ablation therapy, interventional therapy, and systemic chemotherapy can be used to improve their quality of life and prolong their survival time.

AIM

To explore the prognostic factors and treatments of liver metastases of CRC.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 87 patients with liver metastases from CRC treated at the Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute between January 2005 and March 2011. According to different treatments, the patients were divided into the following four groups: Surgical resection group (36 patients); ablation group (23 patients); intervention group (15 patients); and drug group (13 patients). The clinicopathological data and postoperative survival of the four groups were analyzed. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis, and the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The median survival time of the 87 patients was 38.747 ± 3.062 mo, and the 1- and 3-year survival rates were 87.5% and 53.1%, respectively. The Cox proportional hazards model showed that the following factors were independent factors affecting prognosis: The degree of tumor differentiation, the number of metastases, the size of metastases, and whether the metastases are close to great vessels. The results of treatment factor analysis showed that the effect of surgical treatment was better than that of drugs, intervention, or ablation alone, and the median survival time was 48.83 ± 4.36 mo. The drug group had the worst prognosis, with a median survival time of only 13.5 ± 0.7 mo (P < 0.05). For patients with liver metastases of CRC near the great vessels, the median survival time (27.3 mo) of patients undergoing surgical resection was better than that of patients using other treatments (20.6 mo) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients with a low degree of primary tumor differentiation, multiple liver metastases (number of tumors > 4), and maximum diameter of liver metastases > 5 cm have a poor prognosis. Among drug therapy, intervention, ablation, and surgical treatment options, surgical treatment is the first choice for liver metastases. When liver metastases are close to great vessels, surgical treatment is significantly better than drug therapy, intervention, and ablation alone.

Cetuximab Maintenance Therapy in Patients with Unresectable Wild-Type RAS and BRAF Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Institute Prospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Cetuximab plus FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) is the preferred first-line therapy for RAS and BRAF wild-type (RBWT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). To counter chemotherapy-induced side effects, use of maintenance therapy is suggested. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of cetuximab maintenance therapy in patients after effective completion of first-line induction therapy.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled untreated patients with mCRC RBWT who received first-line cetuximab plus FOLFIRI therapy. Following this, patients with treatment response either entered observation (stop treatment) or maintenance treatment 1 (cetuximab plus irinotecan) groups. After 6-12 cycles of maintenance treatment 1, patients entered maintenance treatment 2 (cetuximab only). If a patient progressed on maintenance 2, cetuximab plus FOLFIRI was reintroduced. The primary end point was failure-free survival (FFS), whereas the secondary end points included disease control rate (DCR), objective remission rate (ORR), and progression-free survival (PFS). Safety events were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 79 enrolled patients, 72 completed first-line treatment effectively (DCR 91.1%, ORR 63.9%) and 44 entered maintenance 1 [median PFS 1 (mPFS, maintenance 1) 6.1 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.0-6.2; DCR 56.8%; ORR 22.7%]. Of them, 21 entered maintenance treatment 2 (mPFS2 8.7 months, 95% CI 3.3-14.1; DCR 28.6%; ORR 4.8%). Median FFS (mFFS) was significantly longer in the maintenance 1 group compared with the observation group [12.7 vs. 3.0 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.202, 95% CI 0.111-0.369; P < 0.001]. Overall, mFFS was 19.0 and 9.3 months in maintenance and observation groups, respectively (HR 0.211, 95% CI 0.117-0.380; P < 0.001). Rash acneiform, mucositis, and asthenia were commonly observed adverse events during maintenance treatment.

CONCLUSION

Maintenance treatment with cetuximab after first-line therapy significantly improved FFS, with an acceptable safety profile in untreated patients with mCRC RBWT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered, 2019/10/02, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR number 1900026360.

KRAS and BRAF Mutations as Prognostic and Predictive Biomarkers for Standard Chemotherapy Response in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Single Institutional Study

KRAS mutation is a confirmed predictive biomarker for anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy response for metastatic colorectal cancer. However, its prognosis impact and the predictive potential for first-line standard chemotherapy remains unclear. On the other hand, V600E mutation is the most frequent and studied mutation in the BRAF gene, and it has been associated with a poor outcome of patients and a low response to anti-EGFR treatment. Thus, the aim of this study is to evaluate the role of KRAS and BRAF mutations as prognosis factors and predictive biomarkers for 1st line standard chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. KRAS mutations and BRAF V600E mutations exhibited a poor outcome (p = 0.021 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Cox multivariate analysis showed that the presence of liver metastasis (HR = 1.595; 95% CI: 1.086–2.343; p = 0.017), KRAS mutation (HR = 1.643; 95% CI: 1.110–2.431; p = 0.013) and BRAF V600E mutation (HR = 5.861; 95% CI: 2.531–13.570; p < 0.0001) were statistically significant co-variables for progression-free survival. Interestingly, patients with KRAS mutations were associated with a poor response to first line standard chemotherapy (p = 0.008). In contrast, the BRAF V600E mutation did not have any impact on the first line standard chemotherapy response (p = 0.540). Therefore, in the present study, we provide new insight on the role of KRAS and BRAF, not only as prognosis biomarkers, but also as first line standard chemotherapy response biomarkers in metastatic colorectal cancer.

A retrospective review of cancer treatments and outcomes among Inuit referred from Nunavut, Canada

BACKGROUND

Cancer is a health concern in Inuit populations. Unique cultural, dietary, and genetic factors and geographic isolation influence cancer epidemiology in this group. Inuit-specific data about oncology treatments and survival outcomes in Canadian Inuit referred to urban treatment centres are lacking.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of Inuit patients referred to The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre (tohcc) from the Baffin region of Nunavut between 2000 and 2010 was conducted. Nunavut cancer registry data were used to establish the percentage of cancer cases referred and their survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 307 cancer patients registered among Baffin-region Inuit, 216 [70% (63 men, 153 women)] were referred to tohcc for chemotherapy (ct) and radiation therapy (rt). Mean age in the referred group was 59.3 years (range: 25-89 years), and current smokers constituted half the group (52%). The cancers most commonly leading to referral in men were lung (55%), colorectal (19%), and nasopharyngeal (11%) cancers; in women, they were lung (46%), colorectal (24%), breast (10%), nasopharyngeal (6%), and cervical (5%) cancers. Of the 216 referred patients, 82 (38%) had already undergone surgery, and 18 (8%) received chemoradiation or rt only, all given with curative intent. Among the surgical patients referred, 33 (40%) and 23 (28%) went on to receive adjuvant ct and adjuvant rt respectively. Among 116 patients referred for palliative care, 64 (55%) received ct, 76 (66%) received rt, 43 (37%) received both ct and rt, and 19 (16%) received neither treatment. Median all-stage overall survival was 10 months for patients with lung cancer [95% confidence interval: 6.1 to 13.9 months] and 37 months for patients with colorectal cancer [95% confidence interval: 14.8 to 59.2 months].

CONCLUSIONS

High uptake of palliative and adjuvant ct and rt was observed in the Inuit patients referred to tohcc. Lung cancer was the most common cancer in referred Inuit men and women. The survival rates for Inuit lung cancer patients referred to tohcc were comparable to those in the rest of Canada. Further research is required to understand reasons for non-referral of Canadian Inuit to tohcc.

Bevacizumab-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer liver metastases: Pitfalls and helpful tricks in a review for clinicians

Bevacizumab added to chemotherapy has shown encouraging efficacy in the neoadjuvant therapy of colorectal cancer liver metastases. In absence of biological predictor factors of efficacy to bevacizumab-based treatment, the assessment of response may be a crucial point to select patients who may benefit the most from surgery. At the same time the pathological response after liver resection could represent a guide for the next therapeutic plan. In the pre-surgical phase, conventional computed tomography and response evaluation with RECIST criteria may underestimate the response to anti-angiogenic drugs. Modified computed tomography criteria of response, morphologic changes as well as novel imaging techniques and metabolic assessment by fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography seem to be promising methods for the assessment of response and for leading the clinical choices. Pathological response at the time of surgery is an important prognostic factor and a surrogate of survival for resected patients. Different classification criteria to assess pathological response have been developed, residual viable tumor, tumor regression grade (TRG), modified TRG and tumor thickness at the tumor-normal interface, but to date a superiority of one approach over the others has not been clearly established. In this review, we evaluate the available data with the aim to help the clinicians in the pre- and post-surgical care of patient with colorectal cancer liver metastases treated with bevacizumab-based neoadjuvant strategy.

Up-front systemic chemotherapy is a feasible option compared to primary tumor resection followed by chemotherapy for colorectal cancer with unresectable synchronous metastases

Background

In stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) with unresectable metastases, whether or not resection of the primary tumor should be indicated remains controversial. We aim to determine the impact of primary tumor resection on the survival of stage IV CRC patients with unresectable metastases.

Methods

We retrospectively investigated 103 CRC patients with stage IV colorectal cancer with metastases, treated at Hiroshima University Hospital between 2007 and 2013. Of these, those who had resectable primary tumor but unresectable metastases and received any chemotherapy were included in the study. We analyzed the overall survival (OS) and short-term outcomes between the patients who received up-front systemic chemotherapy (USC group) and those who received primary tumor resection followed by chemotherapy (PTR group).

Results

Of the 57 included patients, 15 underwent USC and 42 PTR. The median survival times were 13.4 and 23.9 months in the USC and PTR groups, respectively (P = 0.093), but multivariate analysis for the overall survival showed no significant difference between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.60 to 2.73, P = 0.495). In the USC group, the disease control rate of primary tumor was observed in 12 patients (80.0%), but emergency laparotomy was required for 1 patient. Morbidity in the PTR group was observed in 18 cases (42.9%).

Conclusions

The overall survival did not differ significantly between the USC and PTR groups. USC may help avoid unnecessary resection and consequently the high morbidity rate associated with primary tumor resection for stage IV CRC with unresectable metastases.

Assessment of colorectal liver metastases using MRI and CT: impact of observer experience on diagnostic performance and inter-observer reproducibility with histopathological correlation

INTRODUCTION

To compare the diagnostic performance and inter-observer reproducibility of CT and MRI in detecting colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) of observers with different levels of experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 51 CT and 54 MRI examinations of 105 patients with CRLM were analysed. Intraoperative and histopathological findings served as the reference standard. Analyses were performed by four observers with varying levels of experience regarding imaging of CRLM (reviewers A, B, C and D with respectively >20, >5, <1 and 0 years of experience). Per-segment sensitivity, specificity, Cohen's kappa (κ) for diagnosed segments and Intra-class Correlation Coefficients (ICC) for reported number of lesions were calculated.

RESULTS

CT sensitivity and specificity was for reviewer A 89.71%/94.41%, B 78.50%/88.37%, C 63.55%/85.58%, D 84.11%/78.60% and regarding MRI A 90.40%/95.43%, B 74.40%/90.04%, C 60.00%/85.89% and D 65.60%/75.90%. The overall inter-observer agreement was higher for CT (κ=0.43, p<0.001; ICC=0.75, p<0.001) than MRI (κ=0.38, p<0.001; ICC=0.65, p<0.001). The experienced reviewers A and B achieved better agreement for MRI (κ=0.54, p<0.001; ICC=0.77, p<0.001) than CT (κ=0.52, p<0.00; ICC=0.76, p<0.001) unlike the less experienced C and D (MRI κ=0.38, ICC=0.63 and CT κ=0.41, ICC=0.74, respectively, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The proficiency in detection of CRLM is significantly influenced by observer experience, although CT interpretation is less affected than MRI analysis.